We are pleased to see that the conversations between Rick Carnes (SGA) and Rep Doug Collins that began at University of Georgia Artists Rights Symposium has resulted in improvement to the representation of songwriters on the board proposed in the Music Modernization Act.   Press release from SGA follows.

SONGWRITERS GUILD OF AMERICA ANNOUNCES THAT NEGOTIATED CHANGES TO MUSIC MODERNIZATION ACT ENABLE ENDORSEMENT OF BILL’S PASSAGEW

Music Publishing Industry Support for Small Claims Act Also Secured

WASHINGTON — The Songwriters Guild of America, the largest and longest-established music creator advocacy organization in the United States, today announced it has negotiated changes to the pending Music Modernization Act (HR 4706) that will enable it to support passage of the legislation.  Among the agreed-upon amendments to the bill are:

• the doubling of songwriter and composer representation on the board of directors of the Mechanical Licensing Collective established by the Act;
• the re-alignment of an Unclaimed Royalties Oversight Committee that will now have a 50/50 music creator and music publisher balance; and
• clarifications to the payments sections that will make it easier for music creators to get the full benefits of their negotiated publishing agreements as applied to the distribution of what the bill refers to as “unclaimed” funds by music publishers.

  

As part of the discussions leading to changes in the Music Modernization Act, the US music publisher community has also pledged to lend its full support on Capitol Hill to SGA’s efforts to secure quick passage of the pending Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2017 (HR 3945). CASE will provide music creators with a much needed, opt-in alternative to expensive, full blown copyright infringement actions against unlicensed users of their music.

Speaking on behalf of SGA, multi-platinum songwriter and organization president, Rick Carnes, noted that, “the benefits of the pending Modernization law, with the changes SGA has successfully sought, have made the current bill deserving of our support.  We continue to applaud the efforts of those members of the music creator and music publishing communities seeking further improvements and clarifications that would make the proposed legislation even more advantageous to American songwriters, composers and independent publishers. Still, the bill as it now stands would — on balance — benefit those creators we are sworn to protect significantly more than no bill at all.  Our two-word mission statement is to ‘protect songwriters.’ After more than six months of hard work alongside our colleagues in the independent music creator community through Music Creators North America (MCNA), SGA feels, individually, that it succeeded insofar as possible in carrying out our mission.”

Under the agreed-upon changes, the Mechanical Licensing Collective board will now have four professional songwriter/composer voting members and ten voting music publishers.  The Unclaimed Royalty Oversight Committee, whose role will be to oversee issues concerning ownership and distribution of so-called “unclaimed” royalties, will now have evenly balanced, “five and five” representation among ten voting members.  As to clarifications regarding payment of music creator royalties received from the Collective by music publishers, the bill is now clearer in spelling out that such royalties are to be distributed on a title-by-title basis to songwriters under the percentages set forth in their publishing agreements.  In other words, a songwriter or composer operating under an agreement that gives such creator the benefit of a 90%/10% split with its music publisher will have that same split applied in the distribution of “unclaimed” royalties that have been matched under the usage formula set forth in the legislation.

Other benefits of the legislation include establishment of a system that:

• is likely to substantially improve royalty payment compliance by digital distributors of music on a going-forward basis;
• changes in royalty rate determination formulas that will benefit both music creators and their copyright administrators; and
• the promotion of greater fairness for US performing rights societies in their negotiations with users.

“Among SGA’s important roles following the bill’s enactment,” continued Carnes, “will be to assist the songwriter and composer community in making sure that every music creator receives the full benefits intended under the Act.  That includes publication of materials designed to inform and remind creators, in consultation with their legal and financial representatives, how best to ensure the maximum, accurate receipt of all royalties to which they are entitled.”  Carnes also pledged that SGA will be in the forefront of efforts, along with its fellow MCNA music creator groups, to ensure that experienced, knowledgeable and — above all — independently-minded songwriters and composers are tapped to serve as board members of the Collective.

SGA, established in 1931, is the largest and longest-established advocacy organization run solely by and for songwriters and composers in North America.  In addition to its role as a legislative advocate, SGA provides copyright administrative services and other informational and representation services to its national US membership upon request

Guest post from The Invisible Stagehand.

I’d like to offer an alternate theory on the foundering attempt by the American Law Institute to “restate” copyright law.  While my colleagues make good points on the lack of transparency, openness and fairness with the current ALI process; rightfully note the conflicts of interest; and excoriate Sprigman for taking money (however indirectly) from Silicon Valley while working on the project, the most obvious conclusion is that those in charge of the restatement are incompetent.  Not devious.

I refer you to Hanlon’s Razor:

Hanlon’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.”

Now incompetence rather than malice doesn’t mean that someone shouldn’t be fired. Someone probably should be fired. Start with Sprigman. He’s in charge of the project. If that doesn’t work fire someone else. Repeat until incompetence stops.

The case for incompetence.

Exhibit One: The fact that this is now a PR issue for the ALI is the clearest example of incompetence.  Sprigman or Director Revesz could have made some relatively small changes to the project in 2015 (as many suggested) and the acting Register of Copyrights would have never written the now infamous “pseudo version of the copyright act” letter. This of course was the basis of the Billboard story that enraged artists. In other words an easily avoidable mistake started the entire controversy. Incompetence.

Exhibit Two: Leader of the project Christopher J Sprigman.  Good lord does the man have a shred of common sense?  I assume the position as “reporter” on the ALI Copyright Restatement is a position that confers some prestige. Why screw it up by taking on Spotify as a client in the middle of the project? Or co-author papers that are directly or indirectly funded by Google at the same time? It’s not an “impartial” look. Did he need the money? I doubt it. Now, not only does his reporter position NOT impart prestige, his own reputation is in tatters. What a screw up.  Clearly not a devious mastermind.

Exhibit Three:  Sprigman’s letter proposing the project clearly indicates he had a result in mind. It reads like a police confession. He admits to everything he is accused of by his critics.  A scholarly project like this is not supposed to start with conclusions and work backwards. Yet he pretty much admits this is his intention in the letter. If I intended to do something this dishonest I wouldn’t start by writing it down in a letter that would surely one day become public. I was too dumb for law school. But this guy must be dumber. Again not a devious mastermind.

Exhibit Four:  If you choose to measure incompetence by quantity, look at some of the letters that take issue with the drafts. For instance the Author’s Guild wrote a long letter to ALI Director Revesz detailing 16 major mistakes in the draft of the first chapter.   Some of these mistakes are just bizarre, (I can’t see the draft) but apparently royalties and fees paid to creators are referred to as “taxation.”  This is either a dumb mistake, or an unnecessary provocation of copyright holders that only an incompetent person would make while trying to build consensus for a draft. Incompetence.

Exhibit Five: Just for fun, let’s take last exhibit and assign deviousness to Sprigman and Revesz.  Suppose they were attempting to pull a variation of a machiavellian committee minority strategy. A competent strategist wouldn’t needlessly antagonize the committee minority by using the term “taxation.”  The minority (pro copyright members) are not supposed to see that the game is rigged. The marks are supposed to think they were simply outvoted. That’s how the con works!! Again incompetent not devious. Maybe add arrogant.

Exhibit Six:  Sprigman took to facebook to call out his critics describing them as “hacks engaging in hackery.” I was speechless when I came across this on facebook. This is not the kind of thing that a competent leader does when faced with criticism.  The guy is clearly out of his league.  Again not a devious mastermind.

I think you get my point.

The Invisible Stage Hand works in the live music business.

 

 

Christopher J. Sprigman a New York University Law School professor is leading the American Law Institute’s dubious “Restatement of Copyright” project, a project the Acting Register of Copyrights called  an attempt to establish a “pseudo copyright act”  while simultaneously representing Spotify in the Bluewater v Spotify copyright infringement case.

Pure hubris. How is it the American Law Institute doesn’t see the appearance of impropriety?  The process is clearly rigged against creators.  I can only conclude the leadership at American Law Institute is corrupt or incompetent.  David F. Levi along with the entire board should resign.

One of three Google funded papers co-authored by Sprigman which were published after he began working as the  “impartial” reporter on the American Law Institutes Copyright Restatement project.

Silicon Valley corporations and anti copyright ideologues are unhappy that there is even a shred of copyright protection left for artists. They have not been able to completely eliminate copyright through congress or the courts so a small highly ideological group have embarked on a dubious “restatement” project to create what the US Register of Copyrights calls a “pseudo copyright act.”  This is an end run around the legislative and judicial branch.

The vehicle is an American Law Institute Restatement of Copyright. In the past the American Law Institute has issued restatements when there were conflicting state laws or matters of  “common law.”  Never before has the ALI issued a restatement when there is a federal statute that spells out the law.  After all the statute is the statute. Who is the ALI to tell judges what the statute says?

The damage comes to artists because it will at best create confusion on copyright in courtrooms.  At worst the project will further tilt rulings towards Google and other Silicon Valley firms that infringe upon our works with impunity.  Like they really need any more money.

The whole thing is rigged.  According to the Google Transparency Project the leader of the restatement Christopher J. Sprigman has been taking funding from Google to write research papers since at least 2011. And he has apparently been receiving funding while working on this project (see screenshots above).

You also may recognize the name because he is Spotify’s lawyer in the Bluewater v. Spotify case. Yes, the same joker that has argued there is no such thing as a streaming mechanical royalty.  This despite the fact the federal Copyright Royalty Board just set the new royalty rate. WTF right? This is the “impartial” reporter the American Law Institute put in charge of the copyright restatement project.

The ALI should end this project now.  It stinks of corruption and cronyism. It’s an embarrassment.  David F. Levi the president of The American Law Institute has been made aware of the problems with this project and has done nothing about it. He should resign for allowing this academic fraud to take place on his watch.